Core pricples and rules

[viper]

This may be a done to death thread im not sure. I ask out of curiosty for the many views out there which expands the depth I see the system. What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student. This a broad subject which I think will get many different view points thus make it interesting

p.s Mega_fist dont even think about talking about judo or poetry.

Thanks for your imput

[canglong]

This may be a done to death thread im not sure. I ask out of curiosty for the many views out there which expands the depth I see the system. What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student. This a broad subject which I think will get many different view points thus make it interesting Viper,
Lets first start by having you define principle and rules and maybe go from there.
Thanks

[Tom Kagan]

This may be a done to death thread im not sure. I ask out of curiosty for the many views out there which expands the depth I see the system. What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student. This a broad subject which I think will get many different view points thus make it interesting

p.s Mega_fist dont even think about talking about judo or poetry.

Thanks for your imput

There are only two "core principles and rules of combat" which "as [a] wing chun or weng chun student" apply. They are universal to any striking art.

1. Strike.
2. Don't get struck.

That's the whole system. Anything else could possibly be "judo or poetry."

:cool:

[YongChun]

Wing Chun is pretty well defined by the forms and the principles that can be extracted from an understanding of the forms. Economy of motion is a theme. The most well known Wing Chun sayings are:

1. Receive what comes
2. Follow what goes
3. Thrust forward when the hand is free

Another slightly different variation I heard from the Jiu Wan people:
(Jiu Wan->Roland Wong-> Mark Lee)

1. If he comes, welcome him
2. If he goes, follow him
3. If he stays, go.

Tai Chi, Aikido and Wing Chun all have the receiving idea but they implement the concept in different ways. All three arts are also concerned with the center and being centered and balanced but again do it in a slightly different way. All three can be said to use a variation of the circle theory and all have large and very small circles. Some people maybe overdo the circle aspect? The circle idea is not foolproof either. Wing Chun is also heavy on the triangluar structure.

Wing Chun has a certain look about it, chacterized by vertical stable postures with the body moving as one unit. The outside and inside approach are just two sides of the same coin with some lineages emphasizing one over the other and even within one lineage some students depending on their size relative to that of the opponent, also emphasizing one over the other. The outside is a longer route but sometimes you cannot take the inside (a charging bull).

General principles can apply to many arts. Once you add more and more then slowly you start to zero in on Wing Chun as being the art that the principles gravitate towards. It's a good challenge to start with a minimum set of principles and then slowly add to the set to eliminate what arts it doesn't apply to.

The forms have just the minimum physical actions required to implement the ideas of the art. The principles of Wing Chun can be applied to many other things so just on principals alone without the physical actions, it may not uniquely identify Wing Chun.

Wing Chun is like physics where the ultimate aim is to find the minimal set of laws to describe all of nature. Some arts (kempo, MMA?) are like chemistry where you try to find the maximal number of techniques.

To me Wing Chun is kind of a cross between boxing and fencing.

Ray

[lawrenceofidaho]

The characters for Wing Chun have been translated in several ways, but the one that is most meaningful to me would be "eternal springtime". It says to me that Wing Chun should be always new, alive, dynamic, and adaptable, -not a set commandments carved into stone tablets.

Throughout human history there have been thinkers who have tried to devise a single unified "theory of everything", which could be applied to explain every facet of the universe without exception, -but the problem is, the universe won't stand still while they study it........

For me, Wing Chun will always be in flux, and this is how it should be. The eternal and ultimate bible of Wing Chun can never be written, and that is part of the art's beauty, in that in can never really be captured and put in someone's pocket or a behind a glass case. -Those who think that it can will later find that they've only captured a worthless shell.

-Lawrence

[Phil Redmond]

There are only two "core principles and rules of combat" which "as [a] wing chun or weng chun student" apply. They are universal to any striking art.

1. Strike.
2. Don't get struck.

That's the whole system. Anything else could possibly be "judo or poetry."

:cool:
It's that simple.
Phil

[canglong]

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
For me, Wing Chun will always be in flux, and this is how it should be. The eternal and ultimate bible of Wing Chun can never be written, and that is part of the art's beauty, in that in can never really be captured and put in someone's pocket or a behind a glass case. -Those who think that it can will later find that they've only captured a worthless shell. Lawrence,
This may well be true for you but it does not hold true for a system that would report to make use of "the most efficient" use of time, space and energy. Universal laws of nature are not "in flux" and the principles of Wing Chun flow out of the universal laws of nature or they could not be classified as principles. Example using YongChun's Kuen Kuit.
1. Receive what comes There is no exception to the rule, it does not change depending on your lineage. Within the disgarded shell of others lay the pearls of wisdom for some.

[lawrenceofidaho]

This may well be true for you but it does not hold true for a system that would report to make use of "the most efficient" use of time, space and energy.
I personally think it is a mistake to always choose the most "efficient and direct" of combat options. Some situations might provide us a choice between options that could be rated on a scale between 1-10 where one extreme is very powerful but also inefficient, and the other extreme is very efficient but has (comparitively) much less power. If you always make the same choice, you are predictable and can be figured out quickly by other fighters who can easily take advantage of a single dimensional approach that cannot / will not adapt.


Universal laws of nature are not "in flux"
Wing Chun doesn't need to change because the laws of nature are changing, but because the skills, abilities, techniques, tactics, etc. of it's practicioners' opponents are always different.

My Wing Chun changes if I'm fighting a fast-handed welterweight trying to knock me out with outer range kicks & punches, a middleweight who wants to keep me in a clinch and fire knees & elbows, or a powerful heavyweight trying to tackle me to the ground. Each situation calls for different choices to be made in order to optimize one's response.


There is no exception to the rule, .
I believe progress is made by questioning so-called "rules".


it does not change depending on your lineage. Within the disgarded shell of others lay the pearls of wisdom for some.
Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn't that leave out quite a bit?

I say regard it all........ Looking at the big picture and considering everything opens up more options for intelligent action, -it doesn't cut them off.

-Lawrence

[snakebyte8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by canglong
it does not change depending on your lineage. Within the disgarded shell of others lay the pearls of wisdom for some.

Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn't that leave out quite a bit?

I say regard it all........ Looking at the big picture and considering everything opens up more options for intelligent action, -it doesn't cut them off.

hey lawrence I think you misread tony's typo!:D

[canglong]

Lawrence first you say,

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
I personally think it is a mistake to always choose the most "efficient and direct" of combat options.then you go on to say...
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Each situation calls for different choices to be made in order to optimize one's response.Lawrence,
You are arguing with yourself because of a lack of certainty, Wing Chun's ability to produce the most efficient option possible is it's greatest strength any time you choose the option other than that of the most efficient one you are making life harder for yourself not just in wing chun but for anything in life.
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Who is the one disregarding here, Tony? When you think that you can only consider actions that the rules of your lineage has traditionally asserted as correct, doesn't that leave out quite a bit?
Lawrence,
Snakebyte8 is correct this statement indicates that you may have misread or misunderstood some of my earlier comments.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Tony,

if you read my last post once more, I think you'll see that the quotes you produce which imply my uncertainty are out of context.

Surely there is a difference between efficiency of methods and efficiency of results. The implication I made in first paragraph of my last post was simply that the most efficient methods (e.g. - shortest path, least commitment, most economical movement patterns, etc.) may not always produce the most efficient results (decisive victory over the opponent with minimal injury to oneslf). Optimal results are [almost] always what is desired in a fight, so that should generally be assumed to be the desired outcome, -it is the methods for achieving this aim that I feel ought to be more closely considered.......

I see my error of misreading of your statement about the discarded shell, but if all possibilities are afforded equal consideration (i.e. - scientific method), and a choice is made to move forward based on the best data provided by [personal] experimentation and empirical observations, I do not feel that it implies that the other options which were not chosen are "discarded". -They are just another tool in the kit which is not being utilized in that moment.

To truly discard something would be to judge something inferior and not worthy of consideration. These types of conclusions, particularly in the martial arts world, are often made prematurely (without thorough investigation), and so must be taken with a grain of salt, even when coming from the mouths of "experts".

There are famous sifus that think MMA is worthless to the Wing Chun practicioner, and there are famous MMA fighters & coaches that think Wing Chun is worthless to a competitive fighter. I personally think these are hasty judgements, and prefer to continue my study of both.

-Lawrence

[canglong]

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
There are famous sifus that think MMA is worthless to the Wing Chun practicioner, and there are famous MMA fighters & coaches that think Wing Chun is worthless to a competitive fighter. I personally think these are hasty judgements, and prefer to continue my study of both.
Lawrence ,
The fundamental flaw in ideaology indicated in that statement is that wing chun has something that MMA does not or perhaps MMA has things that wing chun does not or fighting is part wing chun + part MMA. When in fact fighting is fighting and the person that is most proficient and efficient in application of the rules, laws, principles etc. of fighting will always be the fighter to achieve the "desired optimal results" and not the person that best learns wing chun + MMA or the person that best learns hung ga + TKD or the person that learns mantis + tai chi. Wing Chun like all its counter parts is the name given to the method of attaining particular insight and used to help proliferate a distinct body of knowledge (the principles of fighting). The acquisition method and application are indeed 2 seperate entities.

Back to the original question

originally posted by viper
What would you define as the core principles and rules of combat as wing chun or weng chun student.

[anerlich]

Universal laws of nature are not "in flux"

Man's understanding of them undergoes continuous change and refinement, and is indeed "in flux". At least where disciplines of scientific inquiry are concerned.

Anything else is faith or fundamentalism.

[Chango]

Most efficient = most work done with least amount of effort. If changed something is lost.

Considering our objective in combat we cannot assume more efficient = "Less power" it's more along the lines of precise power. So why would I choose to run around the block a few times or take slightly longer path before arriving at my destination? This does not make sense to me.

anerlich <wrote >Man's understanding of them undergoes continuous change and refinement, and is indeed "in flux". At least where disciplines of scientific inquiry are concerned.

Yes! this is what we call the "human factor" this will always be present when discussing hand to hand combat. But when discussing "most efficient" we are discussing that particular state human factor aside.

Chango

[Ultimatewingchun]

It seems to me that "most efficient" = YOU WIN !!!

And the other guy loses.

And the means of doing that can vary, so it's all on a case-by-case basis.


...........................


"The implication I made in the first paragraph of my last post was simply that the most efficient methods (e.g. - shortest path, least commitment, most economical movement patterns, etc.) may not always produce the most efficient results (decisive victory over the opponent with minimal injury to oneslf)." (Lawrence)


***IN WHICH CASE, Lawrence...they are obviously NOT the most efficient methods in certain situations - and shouldn't be labelled as such.;)

If someone attempts to throw a straight punch at me (allegedly "always" the most efficient method, since the shortest distance between two points is the straight line)...but I duck and throw a hook around his punch and knock him out - then whose method was the most efficient in that instance?

[Matrix]

***IN WHICH CASE, Lawrence...they are obviously NOT the most efficient methods in certain situations - and shouldn't be labelled as such.;)

If someone attempts to throw a straight punch at me (allegedly "always" the most efficient method, since the shortest distance between two points is the straight line)...but I duck and throw a hook around his punch and knock him out - then whose method was the most efficient in that instance?Victor, I think you and Lawrence are basically saying the same thing. He's make a clear distinction between efficiency and effectiveness. There's no point in effeciently taking the wrong course of action.

[anerlich]

this is what we call the "human factor" this will always be present when discussing hand to hand combat. But when discussing "most efficient" we are discussing that particular state human factor aside.

*You* might be, I don't think the rest of us are.

The thread, and Wing Chun, *are* about hand to hand combat, not "efficiency" in some "pure" sense removed therefrom.

In combat between humans, how can the "human factor" be left out?

It would be nice if life and KF were as simple and mathematically precise as some like to think, but basically ... it never is.

Reality is probabilistic, not deterministic. Even the I Ching said as much in times prior to quantum mechanics. You can increase the odds in your favour through strategy and training, but combat remains a gamble.

As Victor alluded and St Bruce said, "Efficiency is anything that scores."

[lawrenceofidaho]

The fundamental flaw in ideaology indicated in that statement is that wing chun has something that MMA does not or perhaps MMA has things that wing chun does not
How is it flawed to assert that each has things that the other does not?

Wing Chun, in fact, has many perspectives, ideas, techniques, and training methods that most MMA practicioners are not aware of, and MMA has many things that a majority Wing Chun practcioners do not understand or appreciate.


or fighting is part wing chun + part MMA.
I'm not sure how you would extrapolate from what I wrote that I believe Wing Chun plus MMA equals fighting.
:confused:
I think Wing Chun and all other martial arts are simply sources of ideas for fighting.


When in fact fighting is fighting and the person that is most proficient and efficient in application of the rules, laws, principles etc. of fighting will always be the fighter to achieve the "desired optimal results"
How the statement above is worded makes it difficult to asses the validity of supposed rules, laws, & principles because the failure of them can (and usually will) always be attributed to the individual rather than considering that the theory may flawed, incomplete, or not as universal as one imagined (especially if there is ego involved or a rice bowl to protect.)

"The system is perfect, the problem is with everyone who attempts to apply it!" :mad:

Putting faith in something usually leads to one becoming an apologist for it. It can mean stubbornly refusing to adapt & change when that is exactly what is called for.

-Lawrence

[Phil Redmond]

. . . Reality is probabilistic, not deterministic. Even the I Ching said as much in times prior to quantum mechanics. You can increase the odds in your favour through strategy and training, but combat remains a gamble.
As Victor alluded and St Bruce said, "Efficiency is anything that scores."
Hmmm, so why do people complain when a fighting clip doesn't look like textbook WC? Or can it?
Phil

[canglong]

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Putting faith in something usually leads to one becoming an apologist for it. It can mean stubbornly refusing to adapt & change when that is exactly what is called for.Lawrence,
Fortunately for us all the universal principles applicable to fighting do not require faith or change just good guidance and constant training. Best regards towards your personal endeavors in pursuit of a better understanding of those principles.

[YongChun]

It seems to me that "most efficient" = YOU WIN !!!
If someone attempts to throw a straight punch at me (allegedly "always" the most efficient method, since the shortest distance between two points is the straight line)...but I duck and throw a hook around his punch and knock him out - then whose method was the most efficient in that instance?

If someone throws a straight punch at me and I duck, and then roll around on the floor, look for a stick, pick it up, roll all the way back to my attacker (who is standing there in shock - to watch my stupid actions), and then give him a lecture on why he shouldn't have tried to punch me and then conk him over the head with my stick, then my actions were not very efficient but I knocked the guy out and won the fight. So in this case my attacker's action was more efficient but he didn't win.

Ray

[anerlich]

Hmmm, so why do people complain when a fighting clip doesn't look like textbook WC? Or can it?

I'm seldom one of the whiners on this subject (awaiting quote from post of mine 3 years ago to prove me wrong :D ). "Textbook WC" IMO would be more about winning the fight than looking the prettiest.

"Beautiful Loser" is a Leonard Cohen song, not one of the Kuen Kuit :cool:

[anerlich]

How the statement above is worded makes it difficult to asses the validity of supposed rules, laws, & principles because the failure of them can (and usually will) always be attributed to the individual rather than considering that the theory may flawed, incomplete, or not as universal as one imagined (especially if there is ego involved or a rice bowl to protect.)

"The system is perfect, the problem is with everyone who attempts to apply it!"

Putting faith in something usually leads to one becoming an apologist for it. It can mean stubbornly refusing to adapt & change when that is exactly what is called for.

Nicely put, Lawrence. The history and philosophy of science, to which too many MA's, including WC substyles, pay lip service to but then abandon when pushed, involves constant change, experimentation, review and adjustment. Anything else in on the same level as astrology and creationism.

Perfection exists only in the imagination. And wouldn't life be a terrible bore otherwise?

"The system is perfect, the problem is with everyone who attempts to apply it!"

Poor workmen blame their tools ... but as any hardware shopper knows, there are good and less good tools, and new and better tools are invented all the time.

[sihing]

Core principals:
1)Economy of motion (Efficiency)
2)Effectiveness of movement (in relation to combat with another person)
3)Logical and practical
4)Easily learned and retained (meaning not much practice is needed to keep the skills once they are obtained)
5)Works for everyone (of course as individuals we vary in our fighting abilities, some suck at it and some excel at it, regardless the movements and methodology of WC should work for each of us equally without the need to modify anything. This DOES NOT mean a inability to adapt.)

Whether or not WC is the "Perfect" MA system is irrelevant, I don't even believe in such a use of the term "Perfect" when relating it to Martial Arts. But like Canglong mentioned, Most Efficient or Most Effective is a better term. As always, how the individual uses it will effect the outcome when what is learn is used. This is always the balance that must be mastered. Efficient and Effective movement vs. how well you can use it (considering your own individual attributes).

The idea that WC is non adaptive (meaning not able to handle today's multi versatile opponent) is incorrect IMO. It is very adaptive. Besides the idea in real fighting it to not have to fight the same guy twice, so relating this to MMA competitions is a poor example. Remember the idea is to get the fight over with quickly, not trade punches and kicks with him for rounds upon rounds. What I like the most about WC is it's ability to allow the use of the surprise tactic. If your opponent has no idea of your skills, WC works very well, as most people feel uncomfortable fighting at that close range while dealing with the arsenal available through the WC delivery system. Even if he does know of your skills, they are still formidable and can allow you at the least to not get seriously injured.

In the end, when some attacks me, the idea is simply to defeat your opponent and get out safely, not perfect WC movement or execution. WC is a methodology, delivery system, way of combat fighting, that is based on efficiency and effectiveness. To deny it's effectiveness is foolish. To call it perfect and for everyone that uses it undefeatable is foolish also. Learn/Understand it well, practice hard and it will be there for you when you need it, just don't be c0cky with it.


James

[Edmund]

If someone throws a straight punch at me and I duck, and then roll around on the floor, look for a stick, pick it up, roll all the way back to my attacker (who is standing there in shock - to watch my stupid actions), and then give him a lecture on why he shouldn't have tried to punch me and then conk him over the head with my stick, then my actions were not very efficient but I knocked the guy out and won the fight. So in this case my attacker's action was more efficient but he didn't win.


How can that punch be considered efficient if it completely failed to acheive it's intended goal (i.e. hitting you)?

[anerlich]

If someone throws a straight punch at me and I duck, and then roll around on the floor, look for a stick, pick it up, roll all the way back to my attacker (who is standing there in shock - to watch my stupid actions),

You watched the scen in "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" where Michael Caine runs out of the room, runs back in, and whacks Steve Martin with the stick, while the latter is in a wheelchair pretending to have lost all feeling and movement in his legs - didn't you?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" was friggin' hilarious! :D

[lawrenceofidaho]

5)Works for everyone (of course as individuals we vary in our fighting abilities, some suck at it and some excel at it, regardless the movements and methodology of WC should work for each of us equally without the need to modify anything. This DOES NOT mean a inability to adapt.)
James,
As a coach, if you have a 110lb woman and a 220lb man begin training at the same time (i.e.-with the same amount of experience), do you pretty much keep them on the same curriculum, and teach them the same methods for dealing with various types of attacks??


The idea that WC is non adaptive (meaning not able to handle today's multi versatile opponent) is incorrect IMO.
I agree, James........ Wing Chun can handle versatile opponents....... but only if the individual has had a decent amount of practice applying their Wing Chun against a variety of realistic attacks in all ranges (e.g.- boxer's hooks & combos, Thai clinches w/ knees & elbows, wrestler's clinches & takedowns, ground positions & submissions, etc.). Wing Chun does have answers in these situations, but if an individual hasn't "made them their own", none of them will come out in a fight.


relating this to MMA competitions is a poor example. Remember the idea is to get the fight over with quickly, not trade punches and kicks with him for rounds upon rounds.
Dude!! They are trying to get it over with quickly........ It's just that it's not so easy to knock out a tough, conditioned fighter.


In the end, when some attacks me, the idea is simply to defeat your opponent and get out safely, not perfect WC movement or execution. WC is a methodology, delivery system, way of combat fighting, that is based on efficiency and effectiveness. To deny it's effectiveness is foolish. To call it perfect and for everyone that uses it undefeatable is foolish also. Learn/Understand it well, practice hard and it will be there for you when you need it, just don't be c0cky with it.
Well said.

-L

[lawrenceofidaho]

The history and philosophy of science, to which too many MA's, including WC substyles, pay lip service to but then abandon when pushed, involves constant change, experimentation, review and adjustment. Anything else in on the same level as astrology and creationism.
Not all martial arts and religions have condemned themselves to being that way though. Check this example out from NPR's webpage:

In his book, the Dalai Lama says Buddhists should embrace scientific evidence even if it contradicts their beliefs.

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5008565&ft=1&f=1007

It requires courage and integrity to take a stand like that, but those who do have definitely earned my respect.

-Lawrence

[sihing]

James,
As a coach, if you have a 110lb woman and a 220lb man begin training at the same time (i.e.-with the same amount of experience), do you pretty much keep them on the same curriculum, and teach them the same methods for dealing with various types of attacks??


I agree, James........ Wing Chun can handle versatile opponents....... but only if the individual has had a decent amount of practice applying their Wing Chun against a variety of realistic attacks in all ranges (e.g.- boxer's hooks & combos, Thai clinches w/ knees & elbows, wrestler's clinches & takedowns, ground positions & submissions, etc.). Wing Chun does have answers in these situations, but if an individual hasn't "made them their own", none of them will come out in a fight.


Dude!! They are trying to get it over with quickly........ It's just that it's not so easy to knock out a tough, conditioned fighter.


Well said.

-L

Concerning the 110lbs woman and 220lbs man, yes, they learn the same things the sameway, nothing is modified. The way they use it of course will be different because of their individuality, how their own bodies use it. Obviously if you have two people with the same skill in the same art, the one with more power, size or speed will have an advantage. You also have to consider that a larger man can take more punishment than a small woman, this means a different mindset is activated between the two people. The small woman may feel more in danger and that her life is in jeapordy when attacked, whereas as the large man may feel less threatened. Who know's really, but the essence is the art works for everyone, when they learn it well and understand it well.

Training is training Lawrence, by that I mean that someone has learned and absorbed the system through progressively harder training and testing measures. You have to eventually deal with random attacks(by people actually trying to hit you) while in class to actually be able to apply it on the street. I do not believe that one absolutely has to go outside of the kwoon to learn how to handle other styles or systems of MA. Maybe if you are competing, it is different. Practicing forms all day in a small part of the process, sparring all day is also a small part of the process. Training the whole of it all is what is needed.

Yes, I agree the more skilled and conditioned the opponent the harder it MAY be, again, using the tactic of surprise and having unknown/effective abilities is useful and will give you a great advantage when the timing is right. Being aggressive rather than passive when unable to get out of a violent situation through other means is key to successfull outcome for you also. WC IMO is very aggressive. At the least you can hit them a few times and distract them when you attack then run away to dissolve the situation in your favor.

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

James,

thanks for taking the time to clarify.

-L

[anerlich]

Lawrence, you are correct.

Most people are sensible, and do not ignore the evidence before them even if it contradicts closely held beliefs.

Most good MAists I have met are pragmatists.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Most people are sensible, and do not ignore the evidence before them even if it contradicts closely held beliefs.
It's funny though, how people can be very pragmatic in some areas of their life, and yet so dogmatic in others.......


Most good MAists I have met are pragmatists.
Agreed (with an emphasis on the word good)........ Unfortunately, there's still plenty of dogmatists about, spouting the "gospel" to whoever will listen.......

:(

-L

[GungFuHillbilly]

Lawrence,

Some really good posts! I've enjoyed this thread.

In all the back-and-forth that’s gone on here however, I can't help but feel that not everyone has the same intent or wants to get the same things out of their training in the martial arts. This would of course make any discussion pointless for all intents and purposes.

I'm reminded of the arguments I would hear between "jazz" musicians :cool: and "classical" musicians :) . The former stating that improvisation is true Music and the latter stating that it is the interpretation of great compositions that is Music. Both are true from a certain point of view, however neither are True.

I had a conversation with someone the other day and he told me that he had studied “the world’s deadliest art.” (Trying not to laugh…) I then submitted my contention that arts are only as “deadly” as those that use them.

So I guess the rhetorical question is “what is your purpose for studying/practicing?” [not directed at anyone specific]

It seems a lot could be solved if we knew that people disagreed with the premises…

[AmanuJRY]

Core principles,

of fighting;

hit and don't get hit.

of Wing Chun;

hit with efficincy, use chi sau skills and footwork to not get hit.

Core Rules????

Ninja please, rules are meant to be broken.